Well, once they get that Quantum Logic thinker dialed in and realize that they aren't hitting zero because of chronic distortions from the future, not to mention their ice pit being bombed by the Logologists I bet they will be able to hit zero finally.

That's odd. I don't claim any knowledge of higher math or physics, but I was under the impression that you couldn't actually get to absolute zero, much less beyond it, because that would interfere with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, in that any particle that stopped moving would have a definite position. Am I wrong on that, quantum geeks?

buckler:, but I was under the impression that you couldn't actually get to absolute zero, much less beyond it,

You can't get to it, but you can get around it. You can never take all the energy out of something and thus stop it moving entirely, after a point taking energy out leads to energy being added. However, if you set things up the right way, you just end up on the other side of it.

WhyteRaven74:You can't get to it, but you can get around it. You can never take all the energy out of something and thus stop it moving entirely, after a point taking energy out leads to energy being added. However, if you set things up the right way, you just end up on the other side of it.

Funny how that seems to be how lightspeed works, too. You don't have to go the speed of light to go faster than the speed of light, so that smug prick Einstein continues being correct.

The sense in which these particles as "negative" is not the opposite of positive. It's not like debt vs wealth, or like below vs above sea level. It's more like a photograph vs its... ahem, negative.

The temperature of the particles is still a few nanokelvin above absolute zero (they still have mean molecular motion greater than zero), but are manipulated to have some properties that high temperature objects exhibit. Hence, it is 'negative' -- inverting said properties. In the debt/wealth, above/below sense, it still has a 'positive' temperature.

ZoeNekros:The temperature of the particles is still a few nanokelvin above absolute zero (they still have mean molecular motion greater than zero), but are manipulated to have some properties that high temperature objects exhibit. Hence, it is 'negative' -- inverting said properties. In the debt/wealth, above/below sense, it still has a 'positive' temperature.

So it's like bundling a bunch of shaky mortgages and putting a AAA credit rating on the whole thing?

Pretty much they defined something else temperature and are saying that in our temperature we can go below absolute zero in the other. Might be nice found, but making that kind of claims is just trying to get attention/funding.Tough with out sensationalism nobody wold care. Everybody knows about absolute zero so they know they'll get buzz.

QuantuMechanic:doglover: Slaxl: I don't understand any of that but it seems to me that if 'absolute zero' is the term for the lowest possible temperature and someone gets below that, then shouldn't 'absolute zero' be redefined with the new value?

No, because the new value seems to be some kind of new state beyond no atomic motion (which is absolute zero) so the negative designation makes sense.

It's like backwards entropy, fizzy lifting drink for the density of occupied states.

I always knew temperature as a rate of change proportion between entropy and energy, dU/dS as it were. Usually energy increases as entropy increases. A negative temperature would be a negative slope such as decreasing entropy as energy was increased.